My apologies if this has been dealt with before. I have done some searching but can't find any discussion. Let say I as a customer raise an incident ticket for what I perceive to be a loss of service. Let's say System A does not allow previews of Excel spreadsheet but does allow previews of other Microsoft documents. The customer reports the fact that excel spreadsheets can't be previewed. On the surface it sounds like a bug but on further investigation it is discovered the vendor of System A for whatever reason never included functionality to preview excel spreadsheets. If this is the case then is there not an argument for saying the functionality never existed in the first place and therefore there is no actual loss of service just the perception there is. If this correct then the right course of action would be to close the incident and open up a problem and/or rfc. Or should the incident remain open because any reasonable person would judge this as a bug and therefore the incident should be left open regardless of any subsequent change/problem solving process?
It's amazing how frequent I come across scenarios like this. Recently I had to deal with an issue where a reporting tool which one assumed would report folder permissions actually didn't even though marketing material from the vendor suggested otherwise. When I contacted the vendor they apologised saying it was a mix-up between the marketing and technical areas? Oooops!

We just encountered a similar episode. An addin that exists in local installs of Excel wasn't available in Excel via Citrix. This was created as an incident by the service desk but as tier 2 realized this was not in fact an incident, but a service that never existed, the incident was closed down and a request for the modification submitted.

The incident was handled within the propsed SLA agreements, and the request dealt with appropriately.